Page images
PDF
EPUB

A.

During FY 80 and FY 81, the State Assistance Program was funded Entirely by the Federal Government at $4.5 million and $5.0 million, respectively.

In FY 82, you are requesting $3.0 million and 50/50 Federal/State sharing of the costs of the program.

In reducing funding for the program, what will be the effect on
States?

How many States are not participating in the program?

How many States do you estimate will drop out of the program
because of the 50% matching requirement?

The State Assistance Program is designed to promote an intergovernmental flood hazard mitigation partnership by strengthening the States' role in the National Flood Insurance Program flood hazard mitigation activities aimed at providing technical assistance to local governments.

A reduction in funding for the State Assistance Program from $5.0
million in FY 1981 to $3.0 million in FY 1982 will significantly
affect the development and implementation of State and local flood
hazard mitigation programs throughout the United States. Fifty-
one (51) States and territories chose to participate in this pro-
gram in FY 1980 (the program's inaugural year) with a similar
level of participation projected for FY 1981. This reduction in
funding, when coupled with the proposed imposition of a 50/50
cost sharing (matching) requirement, undermines the goal of
building State capability and threatens the entire program.
While the reduction in funding will effect the level and scope
of each participating States program, the 50/50 matching
requirement, imposed while the program is in its infancy, will
seriously affect the ability of many States to participate in
the program at all. An analysis of the potential impact a 50/
50 matching requirement will have on State Assistance Program
reveals:

As many as 13 States may be unable to participate because of inadequate lead time to enter legislative cycle in those States;

As many as 38 States may be unable to participate because of inadequate lead time to enter appropriations cycle in those States;

The matching requirement will screen out those States most
in need of developing capability but unable to meet the match;

Current low capability States have limited resources to allocate as matching funds and will drop out of the program;

Lack of capability development at the State level will mean the Federal Government must continue to exercise authority that is the inherent responsibility of States.

Notification of the proposed funding change has been provided to the
States and their responses have confirmed the analysis as to the
negative impact this change will have on program participation in
FY 1982.

[blocks in formation]

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator GARN. The subcommittee will stand in recess until Wednesday, April 8, at 9:30, when we will receive testimony from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Regulatory Council.

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m. Wednesday, April 1, the subcommittee was recessed to reconvene at 9:30, a.m. Wednesday, April 8.]

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT-INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1981

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m. in room S-126, the Capitol, Hon. Jake Garn (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Garn.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN HUBERMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR ACCOMPANIED BY:

DENIS PRAGER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ROLE OF OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Senator GARN. The subcommittee will come to order.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy was created by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. The Office was designed to provide advice to the President on scientific and technological considerations involved in areas of national and international concern and advises the National Security Council on the scientific and technological factors related to national security and international issues.

The Office has, in the past, provided general leadership and coordination of the research and development programs of the Federal Government and assisted the Office of Management and Budget with reviews of proposed budgets for Federal R. & D. programs. In addition, the Office reviewed industrial and business activities in research and development and the factors influencing innovation. The Office advised Congress on the executive branch's views regarding science and technology policy.

For fiscal year 1982, you are requesting $1,793,000 and 12 staff positions. This is a decrease of $919,000 and 12 positions from the appropriated fiscal year 1981 level.

With that brief introduction, we would be happy to receive your state

ment.

Mr. HUBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My statement is fairly brief, but, with your permission, I will summarize the detailed budgetary presentation.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator GARN. We will be happy to place your entire statement in the record.

Mr. HUBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement and biographical sketches follow:]

JUSTIFICATION OF BUDGET ESTIMATES

REVISED APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE

Federal Funds

General and special funds:

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of passenger motor vehicles, services as authorized by 5.U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, [$2,712,000] $1,793,000 (Department of Housing and Urban Development-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1981).

EXPLANATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1982 BUDGET
AND MAJOR INCREASES AND DECREASES

The $1.793 million estimated OSTP budget for FY 82 shows a decrease of $270 thousand from the FY 1981 revised budget. This takes into account recisions of $595 thousand in FY 1981. The budget provides for activities of the Office in support of the President and other White House and Executive Office of the President organizations at a level which is reduced from previous years but which can provide for effective scientific and technological support by using a small staff supplemented by outside consultants and detailees.

The following lists totals by major object class and comments on changes from the revised FY 1981 budget including recisions.

o Personnel Compensation and Benefits--$1,210,000. This is a decrease
of $117,000. Of the total, $774,000 is for permanent and other posi-
tions which will support a work force of 12 permanent and 6 temporary
positions. $160 thousand is budgeted for a full-time equivalent
of 4 consultants. We anticipate these funds will be used to acquire
expert advice from a broad range of individuals working on an inter-
mittent basis. In addition, $200,000 is included for reimbursable
detailees, the bulk of which will be for senior policy analysts.

o Travel--$155,000. This is an increase of $61,000 from the revised FY
1981 budget but a decrease of $60,000 from actual FY 1980 expenditures.
Sixty percent of the total is earmarked for consultant travel and the
remaining 40 percent we expect to use for staff travel. It is important
to note that during FY 1981 the operations of the Office were held at
a very low level pending the confirmation of a new Science Adviser;
therefore, 1981 travel expenditures are abnormally low.

o Transportation of Things--$3,000. Expenditures for this category are
low and do not occur on a consistent year-to-year basis. $3,000 is
budgeted for expenditures to provide for minor moving expenses for
new personnel and office relocation.

« PreviousContinue »